HOLCOMBE
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
|
|
|
Location: DAWLISH – Holcombe Hall,
Proposal:
Major redevelopment of existing Nursing Home to encompass two new
substantial buildings
Reference
08/00509/MAJ
I
am writing on behalf of Holcombe Residents Association to object to the above
planning application. The
Association has over 340 members in the village and the following comments arise
from discussions at a recent general meeting of the Association and careful
analysis of the proposal by the Association’s Planning sub-committee.
We
recognise that the developer has gone some way to respond to concerns about the
previous proposal but, in our view these do not address a number of key and
critical issues in an acceptable way. We
remain seriously concerned about the following issues:
1. The design and scale of the proposed eastern extension.
2.
The very negative effect which this extension will have on
the amenity of a number of neighbouring properties.
3.
The proposals for improving the junction of
4.
The possible effect of the building work on the stability of
the site and its immediate environment.
In
addition we have continuing concerns about the following issues:
5.
The adequacy of local services and
6.
Lack of certainty about the longer term use of the proposed
buildings.
These
concerns are addressed in more detail below.
In
our view this is still much too large and the design is not in keeping with the
fine architectural features of the main house.
We continue to believe that this extension should be limited to two
floors and have a footprint which corresponds to the natural building line of
the rear elevation of the existing main building and not spread to cover the
area between the main building and
The
proposed eastern extension will have a seriously damaging effect on the amenity
of a number of properties to the north of Holcombe Hall.
Land behind
I
am attaching a photograph taken from one of the potentially effected properties
and have drawn on the probable position of the eastern extension.
Inspection of this photograph will show the extent of loss of amenity if
this project goes ahead as proposed. Reducing
the size of the eastern extension to two floors as suggested in 1 above would go
a long way to alleviating this problem.
We
note that another respondent has asked why this extension should not be built on
extensive land to the west of Holcombe Hall and it is clear that this would have
far less deleterious effect on neighbouring properties.
3.
The
inadequate proposals for improving the junction of Holcombe Drive with the A379
As
indicated in our submission dated
3.1
Completely
inadequate provision for pedestrians.
Our
main concern is the total inadequacy of the proposed provision for pedestrians
and walkers on the South West Coastal footpath to cross the busy main road
safely. The “indicative
location” of the pedestrian refuge would, in our view be more dangerous than
at present as it would entail a road crossing well beyond the natural
place to cross and those crossing would have to walk back along a narrow
stretch of the road with no pavement in order to go down Smugglers Lane.
The only acceptable place for such a refuge would be on the Dawlish side
of the junction with
However,
we agree with the previous submission from the South West Coastal Footpath
Association that, even this, does not address the safety of pedestrians who also
need to cross the A379 at
In
a recent meeting between local Councillors, the Area Engineer [South] and one of
our committee members about this stretch of road it was said that a full study
of these issues is to be undertaken and it is essential that any improvements at
the junction with Holcombe Drive fit into a coherent medium term plan for
improvements to pedestrian safety along this stretch of road.
Local residents were promised action on this in the Dawlish South
Community Transport Plan as long ago as 2003 and are understandably exasperated
at delays and lack of effective planning.
We
are also concerned about the following aspects of the proposed improvements at
this junction:
3.2
Loss
of bus bay.
The current bus bay on the western side of the road is significantly
reduced. This will cause significant queuing behind the bus, making the road
junction even more dangerous for both motorists and for pedestrians crossing the
road.
3.3
No recognition of bus stop on eastern side of the A379.
This bus stop is not indicated on the plan and is not therefore taken
into consideration in the planning. In
our previous comments on this aspect of the proposal we said: “Finally,
the proposals at the junction make no reference to the bus shelter at this
point. It will be necessary to move
this so that it is nearer the new carriageway so that people sheltering in it
can see and hail buses. There is no
point in having a bus shelter unless the many elderly people using it can do
this easily”. We are most
disappointed that this aspect has not been addressed in the current proposals.
4.
The
possible effect of the building work on the stability of the site and its
immediate environment.
There
are several aspects to this issue;
Stability
of
Stability
of the slope on which the southern extension will be built.
Whilst we have no objection in principle to the plans for the southern
extension we understand that there has been subsidence during the groundwork
phase of the current construction of houses in a very similar relationship to
the same slope at the nearby Gatehouse site.
This will clearly need investigation.
Stability
of the land under the proposed eastern extension.
We note that the developer indicates that this can only be tested by
boreholes after demolition of the present much smaller extension and it would
appear prudent for the Planning Authority to make such investigation a condition
of approval of any development.
In
our submission of
There
is considerable local disquiet about possible long term change of use of the
newly developed premises and we wonder if anything can be done to protect
against this possibility.
Conclusion
For
the above reasons, which reflect the views of a substantial number of the
residents of Holcombe, we ask that the Development Control Committee reject the
current application and seek proposals which address the concerns raised above.
We
also ask that no decision is made on this application without a full site
inspection by members.
Yours faithfully,
John Watson, Secretary - Holcombe Residents Association
The
Director of Planning, Teignbridge District Council,
Forde
House,
CC:;
Cllr H Clemens ,Cllr J Clatworthy, Local Services officer DCC Highways, Chief
Officer DCC Highways, South West Coast Path Association